Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Acts 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Acts 10:15 And the voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed and pronounced clean, no longer consider common (unholy)." |
Subject: Greek use of koinos and akathartos |
Bible Note: Part 1 of 2 Sorry for the length. Also, this is mainly about the final two paragraphs, not the interpretation I take, but you can respond to whatever. Tim, this is what I found. I wrote it as an essay and copied it here, so excuse the more formal approach. In Romans 14:14 we read, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” The word translated into English as “unclean” is koinos (Strong’s 839). However, the word koinos literally means “common.” Why then do the translators use “unclean” and is that the best word to use? The use of “unclean” is chosen for two main reasons. 1) the obvious connection to impermissible foods which links it to Lev. 11; 2) the connection that common (koinos) has to unclean (akathartos Strong’s 169) found in Acts 10 and Mark 7. It is quite certain that “common” and “unclean” have a connection in the New Testament Scriptures. In Acts 10:14, after Peter sees all kinds of animals (we assume clean and unclean) descend in a sheet he hears a voice say, “Kill and eat.” Peter replies, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common (koinos) or unclean (akathartos)” Here Peter insists that he has never eaten anything common or unclean. Therefore, we must assume there is some connection to the two words; yet, they are distinct. Unless we assume Peter to be redundant, there must be something different between something that is common (koinos) and unclean (akathartos). Another example from the New Testament is Mark 7:2, “…and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.” Here koinos is translated as impure, and impure due to unwashed hands. Now we know for a fact that the Old Testament has nothing to say about the common Israelite needing to wash his hands for them to be pure for eating. Yet, the Pharisaic rules of the day found a way to render unwashed hands, not as unclean (akathartos), but as common or impure (koinos.) So here again the word common is obviously connected to, but different from unclean. In the LXX translation of the Old Testament, unclean animals and other items found unclean are always translated with akathartos, and never with koinos. And again, koinos literally means common, not impure in classical Greek. So, why is it connected to impurity and things unclean? What are we to make of this? Hebrew Scriptures: There was an offering for the Temple that only the Levites and there families could eat. It is often referred to as the heave offering, but the Hebrew word is terumah. This basically was something that was “clean” – but because it was reserved for only the priestly caste, it was forbidden to the common man. Hence, terumah that was outside of the Temple environs became “common” and inedible – and the reverse is true as well – those things “common” were not permitted in the sanctified areas of the Temple. Also, the priests were required to wash their hands when performing in the Temple. (Ex. 30:18) Pharisaic law: These concepts were extended from the Temple environs to the every day life of Pius Jews (by man-made law). If someone “unsanctified” (i.e. Gentile) touched bread, it became “common” or unfit to eat, even though it conformed to the clean/unclean laws of the Torah. Likewise, the person that could render bread “common” was also referred to as “common.” Therefore we see a link between things common and things unclean. continued..... |